[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

SMITH and JONES: The Undoubled Game

Posted By: Nack Ballard
Date: Wednesday, 31 May 2017, at 7:27 p.m.

In Response To: SMITH and JONES: The Undoubled Game (Bob Koca)

"The very FIRST time a market gainer appears (which must happen eventually, if the game is to ever break contact), it automatically means that the other player had a market-losing sequence on the roll prior (without an opposing market gainer, by definition), and therefore had a double"

Does "had a double" equal "had a mandatory double"? Assuming that is what is meant I do not believe a proof of what is being said in that paragraph has been given. In particular suppose the game changes in the following way: The first several rolls do not change the game from 50-50 and then there is a roll (let's say on A's turn) which decides the game. A has a market losing roll but the double is optional with gains and regrets exactly balancing. Two turns before that A did not a have a market losing sequence (two rolls causing no change in win chance are coming) The turn before B has a market losing sequence but it is optional violating the conjecture.

Can you please clarify your final sentence? Are you referring to B's roll that occurs between the two A rolls you mentioned (current, and two rolls ago)? If so, then doesn't it prove my point that the "other player" (B) had a proper double? He had a market-losing sequence(s) but could have no offsetting gainer, because the assumption has been made that the very FIRST gainer occurred on the roll after his (i.e., the current roll).

Nack

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.